Then there are the sins that are nothing in the new church but definitely something to us. Imagine the reaction you'd get trying to confess to a conciliarist the sins of Communion in hand and not abstaining on Fridays outside of Lent.

After I left the NOM and finally confessed the above to a traditional priest, the hefty penances I got were a relief! I even got suggestions for how to make reparation. I also confessed to being too stupid in my younger days to educate myself about what the Church really teaches. The NOM would use the lack of awareness as an excuse, but I'm not buying that anymore, at least not for myself.

That’s strange, I wouldn’t even consider those things as sins. The “communion” you took in the hand was just bread and you were directed by the leaders of the NO church to receive it that way, there was no sin on your part. The same with abstaining from meat on Fridays, the NO leaders approved of it, you were just obedient to what you thought was the real Catholic hierarchy.

He's right, they are sins.


1)  It could have actually been Our Lord.  2) Communion in the hand is normally a sin, so objectively it's wrong. 


You can eat meat on Fridays under V2, but you have to perform an substitute penance.  Most do not, so eating meat is a mortal sin.

Uhm, no.  Most do not abstain from meat because they're unaware of the substitute penance requirement.  You can't commit mortal sin without knowledge of it being a mortal sin.  Something might be objectively a grave sin, but it's not "mortal", i.e. causing the loss of sanctifying grace, without knowledge of it being objectively grave matter and then the individual willing to do it anyway.

People who don't know what they're talking about should stop posting their opinions about such things.

Similarly, with Communion in the Hand, even if it MIGHT have been Our Lord (very unlikely except if consecrated by an older priest, and using the fixed translation of the consecration), if an individual thinks it's permissible, he's not committing a sin.  NO spews a lot of propaganda about how there's nothing wrong with it, how it was done in the early Church, etc.

Uhm, no.  Most do not abstain from meat because they're unaware of the substitute penance requirement.  You can't commit mortal sin without knowledge of it being a mortal sin.  Something might be objectively a grave sin, but it's not "mortal", i.e. causing the loss of sanctifying grace, without knowledge of it being objectively grave matter and then the individual willing to do it anyway.

People who don't know what they're talking about should stop posting their opinions about such things.

Similarly, with Communion in the Hand, even if it MIGHT have been Our Lord (very unlikely except if consecrated by an older priest, and using the fixed translation of the consecration), if an individual thinks it's permissible, he's not committing a sin.  NO spews a lot of propaganda about how there's nothing wrong with it, how it was done in the early Church, etc.

This does sound right, that would mean no one can commit a mortal sin without knowing it's a sin.

And in that case it would be better to keep people ignorant.

From the new CCC

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

I thought that you don't have to know what you're doing is a sin specifically but that you know what your doing i.e the act, and choose to do it.

Again, until you two can exhibit even a basic knowledge of the Catechism, you shouldn't be posting.

So you're claiming that people can commit mortal sins (that result in the loss of sanctifying grace) without knowing that what they're doing constitutes grave matter?  Idiotic.

Now, the natural law is written in men's hearts, so they know about those laws that way, but any positive law (divine or ecclesiastical) requires knowledge.  There can be culpability in not doing the necessary diligence to inquire about the law, but some people are in a state where they don't know that they don't know.

I thought that you don't have to know what you're doing is a sin specifically but that you know what your doing i.e the act, and choose to do it.

Of course you have to know that what you're doing is evil or bad in order to commit a sin.

Both of you guys need to stop posting now, since you're putting out bad information that could be harmful to people.

Again, until you two can exhibit even a basic knowledge of the Catechism, you shouldn't be posting.

So you're claiming that people can commit mortal sins (that result in the loss of sanctifying grace) without knowing that what they're doing constitutes grave matter?  Idiotic.

Now, the natural law is written in men's hearts, so they know about those laws that way, but any positive law (divine or ecclesiastical) requires knowledge.  There can be culpability in not doing the necessary diligence to inquire about the law, but some people are in a state where they don't know that they don't know.

From the quote

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice


I will give an example.

If a man knows drinking lots of alcohol will get him drunk, and he chooses to get drunk, but he doesn't know drunkenness is a grave sin, he has still committed a mortal sin.

Because he knew drinking a lot would get him drunk - so he had full knowledge 
He willingly chose to get drunk - he had sufficient deliberate consent 
Drunkenness - grave matter 

He had all 3 so it would be a mortal sin, even if he didn't know getting drunk was a sin, as the catechism states "It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act,"


This is how I understand what the catechism teaches.

So if a child is taught that objectively evil things are good, and they grow up and do those evil things, they don't commit any sins?

When you say objectively, are you speaking of the natural law written on men's hearts? That would imply knowledge. If one TRULY doesn't know it's an evil or a sin, then according to the Church  culpability is not implicit. It doesn't mean that the person does not suffer in it's commission